I would say more likely the door is already closed on requirements since we already move it forward. But you never know what would happen...
-James Seng ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Hopwood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2001 3:09 AM Subject: Re: [idn] Overspecifications in draft-ietf-idn-requirements-08 > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > I see that there have been no comments on my suggested changes to > draft-ietf-idn-requirements-08.txt. Is that because no-one disagrees > with them, or because no-one has looked at them closely? > > - -- > David Hopwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Home page & PGP public key: http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hopwood/ > RSA 2048-bit; fingerprint 71 8E A6 23 0E D3 4C E5 0F 69 8C D4 FA 66 15 01 > Nothing in this message is intended to be legally binding. If I revoke a > public key but refuse to specify why, it is because the private key has been > seized under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act; see www.fipr.org/rip > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: 2.6.3i > Charset: noconv > > iQEVAwUBO8ScyjkCAxeYt5gVAQEgDwgAkmM6xPhGv9vaAnijZRxbdYRKpBEZ6Ov6 > Cc/9oRI3twCicIpaCRvSg3Glwj9kyGEZNcLKN9Mn6nE2rboSviEM7gL1THk8gBbd > +wf2bNAFGlJgQufMvQDIJevEYAKQARdH6xki5d6kqncY1NPcRl2PaTozrjTWv/t7 > TZ+r5IGMJMu33GuLKMIx5/TYf8QQvRHEY1uj0q2zOCqE4o2SA6VF5INvJdh1b4io > ywSvbZYxW6z9wqrpKHz2zKOLK+a3Vqu2ChplMWn2+QucdFP4QTKmn1dawkVssj3R > wHx0P1w3ESRrH0og1w/nrDTZioYkT6y2N9RxZoKuLzopdumbA3Wyvw== > =eD2A > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >
